Unlike many governor candidates in the past, Republican candidate Chris Dudley came out this week and offered his 26-point plan to help restore Oregon’s budget (see Dudley plan here). The Oregonian said of Kitzhaber’s response to Chris Dudley’s 26 point plan, “Kitzhaber said Friday that he had not yet seen Dudley’s proposal and added, “I couldn’t tell you what we’re going to do.”. This begs the question on what can and what will Kitzhaber do? Kitzhaber is used to the old style politics of calling for headline grabbing public meetings to discuss problems instead of actually calling for solutions.

The current governor Kulongoski has thrown out the problem with his alarming $10.3 billion deficit report. How Kitzhaber responds will be a defining moment. The problem is that Oregonians are not used to hearing solutions on the campaign trail – especially from Dr. No Kitzhaber.

Please offer your prediction on how Kitzhaber might respond to the Dudley plan.

Subscribe to this blog

Subscribe Via Email

One thing is sure. Initially, Kitz will go nowhere near the third rail of public employee compensation. However, because the financial impact on the budget is so large, he will eventually have to address it. If Dudley doesn’t force his hand, public employees themselves may do it.

If I were Dudley, I’d start working Kitzhaber over in the first debate and keep the pressure on in my media program. All informed Oregonians know that public employee compensation is the 800 pound gorilla in the budget and must be addressed before Oregon goes down the California (and others) trail.

Stay tuned, it’s going to get really interesting.

WHAT?!

The first debate?

We should have had several by now, but Dudley refuses to talk about the issues in front of Oregonians! The Kitzhaber team proposed 7 debates around the state, and Dudley refused them all, instead saying they should have one. In Portland.

I bet the residents of Bend, Lakeview, John Day, Coos Bay and Springfield were happy to hear that from The Dud.

Don’t just defend your guy; push him to defend himself in front of the people he wants to hire him. I can’t vote for a guy who won’t even go on the record with his ideas and hides behind his campaign staff.

Founding Fathers

How is Oregon Catalyst going to respond to Lars Larson’s posting of bogus information on their website? So far, the only response has been to take the post down (don’t believe me? Go to google news and search on “Lars Larson” and not the link for “Lars Larson: Now a majority of American’s question Obama’s birthplace”, then click on the link and notice that it’s blank).

Will Oregon Catalyst require Lars to post an apology? Will they require him to provide documentation before he posts again? Will they ban him from their site?

It remains to be seen if Oregon Catalyst has any ethical standards.

Rupert in Springfield

They probably wont address it at all because you were simply wrong and glaringly so.

You insisted the Senate had not looked into McCains citizenship question during the election. Lars said they had and you claimed he was lying. You felt he should lose his job over it.

Well, I dont exactly know where you were during the election but Lars was correct and you simply made up this nonsense that the Senate never looked into it.

The fact is the Senate voted unanimously that McCain was eligible on the citizenship question when it became an issue.

The Senate also issued a non binding resolution on the question as well in order to address any court challenges to the question.

All of this was pretty notable during the election. The Washington Post reported on it. How you missed it is anyone’s guess.

This is the second time I have caught you making stuff up out of thin air. Looks to me like the one without any ethical standards is you.

Founding Fathers

If Lars wasn’t lying, why’d the post come down?

Lars said there were hearings. There weren’t hearings. They passed a resolution, but they did not hold hearings, which is what Lars was suggesting they should do about Obama.

You do realize that the Senate sometimes votes on things that have not had hearings, right?

If the Senate held hearings, can you point to any evidence that they did?

Founding Fathers

Rupert, the only references I’ve found to Senate hearings on McCain’s birth are Lars’ post and another blog post from a week and a half ago. I can find no real evidence that the Senate held hearings or held any kind of investigation. What I’ve seen suggests that some Senators, including Democratic Senators, thought the issue should just go away, so they passed a resolution.

So perhaps the question we should be asking is why there are no Republican Senators to sponsor a resolution on Obama’s birth. Of course, they’re all beholden to a constituency that appears to be insane.

Rupert in Springfield

The Senate debated the matter. Sorry you are simply wrong. They considered whether to pass a law and end the McCain debate Or go with a resolution. In the end the resolution was decided on rather thanpassing a law as the law was felt to open up a legal quagmire on issues other than McCain. Sorry, when you have a judiciary committee work on a resolution, the full senate vote on it as well as consider the alternative of passing a law that is about as much investigation into the matter as on can expect. It is amazing to me you are continuing to lie about this, especially after being caught once before. Every newspaper covered this, here is one from the new York Times. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/senate-deals-with-mccains-citizenship/
Looks like you are done here, at least until tour next round of BS

Founding Fathers

I read the link you provided, Rupert. Nowhere in that article does the word “hearing” or “investigation” appear. Yes, they voted on the matter. That doesn’t mean they looked into it in depth.

Arguing that a lie is the truth is a losing proposition, Rupert. The sooner you give it up, the better off you’ll be.

Anonymous

Oh dean,dean,dean,dean,dean,dean

Founding Fathers

Rupert,

I see that you are unable to show that there were hearings about Senator McCain’s birth. That’s exactly my point–there were no hearings. Lars had claimed that there were, then he took the post down when I pointed out that he was lying.

Founding Fathers

If I made stuff up on my job and passed it off as fact, I’d get fired as soon as it was discovered.

What will happen to Lars for making stuff up and passing it off as fact?

Rupert in Springfield

>If I made stuff up on my job and passed it off as fact, I’d get fired as soon as it was discovered.

You did lie – you did get discovered.

This nonsense that you are trying to claim that the Senate never looked into McCains citizenship is so ridiculous. The Washington post reported on it. There was a unanimous vote on it, there was a resolution issued on it.

You lied

You got caught

Get over it and move on.

Founding Fathers

I’m saying they didn’t hold hearings. They didn’t. Can you point to anything showing that they did?

Notice that Lars’ post was scrubbed from the site. You think they’d do that if his post was accurate?

Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

Rupert in Springfield

The Senate judiciary committee investigated and approved the resolution out of committee. It was the unanimously approved by the Senate as a whole. This was widely reported and it simply is inconcievable anyone present in the country at the time would be unaware of this.
Look, it’s pretty clear you are simply trying to gin up some nonsense with a lie. Nice try, you got caught. This is the second time now. Maybe next time try lying about something that wasn’t so widely covered. Just a thought.

Founding Fathers

Again, Rupert, Lars said they held hearings. They didn’t hold hearings. Lars’ post was taken down, apparently it was too embarrassingly wrong for OC.

It appears that your claim that the Senate “investigated” McCain’s birth is also wrong. Senators passed a non-binding resolution, and did no investigation beforehand and did not hold hearings.

Can you please point to something that the Senate either held hearings or otherwise investigated McCain’s birth? Until you do, you’re just blowing smoke.

eagle eye’s optometrist!

Less to Dudley’s plan than meets the eye, but some illuminating stuff there.

First, the long-term general funds deficit is only about 10% of the general funds budget (see p. 2 of the plan). Others have come up with this number too; it seems to be right about on target. Not the stuff of the “state bankruptcy” that some of the more eager hate-government types keep lusting for.

Second, of the long-term deficit (p. 3), only about a third is made up of “payroll costs”. So problems with “payroll costs” amount to a little more than 3% of the general funds budget. That’s interesting in light of the constant screaming about public worker “bloodsuckers” causing the destruction of Oregon. The rest of the deficit is due to increased demand for human services, debt service, etc.

Third, if Dudley ever actually comes up with details on how he will fill the budget gap — programs, savings with numbers adding up to the $2.25 billion or so long-term biennial deficit — it’s hard to find. He has his 26 points, but when all is said and done, they don’t add up to a hill of bean-counting!

Dudley should hope Kitzhaber’s staff doesn’t see this too.

eagle eye

Interesting, doc, good work. But do you expect them to care about real numbers? The other stuff is too much fun.

I wonder if Dudley has figured out what you figured out?

Marvin McConoughey

I don’t see how either candidate could devise a detailed, acceptable, plan for handling Oregon’s dismal economic and budget reality and still hope for election. A bit of smoke and mirrors will likely be required in order for either candidate to win.

JeffSmith

Actually, I’d say Kitzhaber has already responded. He’s run an ad downplaying party affiliations and the past, showing that he’s running away from who he is and his record. He’s whined about debate schedules and not addressed issues in general or the key concerns of Oregonians, jobs and the economy. He’s avoided public appearances where someone might ask him something awkward about his past record. The only active move has been a cheesy Facebook ad which takes people to a “survey” making all sorts of unsubstantiated attacks on Dudley. Kitzhaber offers just more of the same thing that got us into this situation while Dudley shows leadership.